A Primer on the Current Clean-Flesh Movement in the Central Christadelphian Community

With the passing of time a few things have become obvious to me about the controversy, and the state of the Christadelphian community.

1. The atonement itself is simple. Doctrinal errors, and errorists' cunning (Ephesians 4:14) use of language are the only things that have made discussion of the topic complex. God has offered us salvation and it would seem obvious that God wants us to understand how He will save us (John 3:16) -- upon what basis He will save us (Romans 3:26).
   
   
2. The present controversy has become hopelessly bogged down in arguments that divert attention away from the fundamental issue. Therefore it would help to lay out the fundamental problem and answer the question: "what is clean-flesh?".

   
   
   1. Simply stated, clean-flesh denies that there is "sin in the flesh". It does not deny that the death principle exists "in the flesh". In fact, clean-flesh teachers talk about 'death' to divert attention away from this:
   2. What is "sin in the flesh"?
      
      • There are two acceptations or definitions of the word "sin". Sin is first transgressions (eg. Leviticus 6:2; James 4:17) and secondly it is a term applied to our physical nature (2nd Corinthians 5:21; 1st Peter 2:24).
        
        
      • "Sin in the flesh" is that law in its physical constitution that inclines it to self-gratification. It is the evil animal principle which evolves transgression as well as natural corruption. It is that which has "the power of death" and personified in Hebrews 2:14 as "him".
        
        
      • In other words, "sin" is first transgression. Second, "sin" is the evil animal principle of the body which evolves transgression as well as natural physical corruption which ends in death.
   3. How is "sin in the flesh" denied? In different ways:
      
      • By making various arguments such as, "Romans 8:3 does not say sin-in-the-flesh" (notice the added hyphens). The added hyphens indicate sin and flesh are a single thing and therefore the comment suggests that flesh is not 'sin' (2nd definition).
        
        
      • By claiming that the 2nd acceptation is "only" a metonymy. It isn't as Romans 7:23 shows. Because of the 2nd definition of the word 'sin', the flesh and blood body is sometimes spoken of as "sin" which is a metonymy. A metonymy is when you call a thing by a characteristic of the thing. In this case, 'sin' is put for 'flesh and blood'. If use of 'sin' as a metonymy made it 'not real' then something that is not real ought not be spoken of as 'sin in my members' (Romans 7:23). If it isn't real then Paul, and therefore the spirit of God, was mistaken when Paul wrote, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." If it was not real but only a figure of speech, how strange for Paul to say that this sin 'in his members' constitutes his body to be a 'body of death' (Romans 7:24) and for James to say that 'sin when it is finished bringeth forth death' (James 1:15).
        
        
      • By claiming that God condemned "sin, in the flesh" (notice the added comma) -- that is, they claim that Christ condemned sin while he was mortal by not committing transgression -- or by Christ having our transgressions, somehow, symbolically 'transferred' to him -- just as the apostasy teaches. The problem here is that Romans 8:3 says that God did something the Mosaic law could not do... God condemned "sin in the flesh".
        
        
      • By claiming that the 2nd acceptation of sin is "Andrewism". This accusation is made by those who, as brother HP Mansfield wrote, "do not know Andrewism when they see it, though they wax eloquent about the 'blasphemy' of certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" H.P. Mansfield,Logos, July 1971, p. 382. The suggestion that the 2nd acceptation of sin is "Andrewism" stems from the writings of Harry Fry who was disfellowshipped in 1898 for his erroneous teachings on the atonement. But his writings were redistributed in the 1980's by those who subscribe to his teachings.
   4. How are the same Scriptures interpreted differently?
      
      • The 2nd acceptation of sin is denied, or they attempt to portray the second definition of 'sin' as something that is not real by hiding behind, and misusing, the word 'metonymy' and then...
        
        
      • Errorists take Scriptural figures and interpret them literally. For example, Isaiah 53:6 says, "Yahweh hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Traditional Christadelphian teaching is that this is a figure. The figure is that of Yahweh laying upon Christ "the inquity of us all". The explanation of the figure is that Christ was "made flesh and blood" as common to all men -- under the physical law of sin and death. Errorists take the figure and interpret it literally: OUR actual SINS were ceremonially, or symbollically, laid upon, or imputed to Christ at his death. That makes Christ a subsitute. To believe this doctrine is to carry the mark of the beast in one's forehead (Revelation 14:9).
        
        
      • Another example is 1st Peter 2:24. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Traditional Christadelphian teaching is that this is a figure. The figure is again that of Christ bearing our sins. He did this "in his body" by being made of the common flesh and blood nature which is subject to the physical law of sin and death. Errorists take the figure and interpret it literally: OUR actual SINS were ceremonially laid upon, or imputed to Christ at his death.
        
        
      • Taking figures and interpreting them literally and taking the literal and interpreting them figuratively is the modus operandi of apostate Orthodox Christianity.  They take, for example, the figures of the book of Revelation and interpret them literally. They take literal things, such as the kingdom of God and interpret them figuratively ("the Church"). Thus some turn to Gen 3:15, a figurative prophecy remote from the actual events and build from figurative language a chronology concerning the cleansing of Christ. Same mistake, same result.
   5. What is the problem with this different view of these Scriptures?
      
      • "Lose the atonement and you've lost the atonement" (Rom 1:16; 2Co 11:4; Gal 1:6-7; Gal 3:3; Rom 10:3; Rev 22:15).
        
        
      • Our basis of fellowship includes Doctrines to be Rejected #27: "That there is no sin in the flesh". Notice there is no comma in the phrase "sin in the flesh" and the statement as written would not make sense with the insertion of a comma.
        
        
      • John Martin correctly claimed in 1970 that all Christadelphian doctrines can be found amongst different religious groups except one: Our teaching on the atonement -- specifically our teaching regarding Christ's nature and sacrifice. The claim that OUR actual SINS were ceremonially laid upon, or imputed to Christ at his death is Orthodox Christianity's teaching of substitution so that the one distinctive doctrine we once commonly held is now being lost. Some "Christadelphians" that subscribe to this error are intellectually honest enough to admit that this is substitution and have no problems with using the word. Can the Lord's return be much further off with such a dreadful state of things?
        
        
      • Think about it: the very doctrine of "what is the devil?" is being challenged. Instead of "the devil" being the physical "flesh and blood" of man, the clean-flesh emphasis on the moral results of sin throws into question the very issue of "what is the devil" (in the personal realm). At the current pace it would take only one more generation and a majority of  "Christadelphians" would be searching for a way to give meaning to the phrase "the devil"... and history tells us where it will lead. "Mater Ecclesia", Mother Church is waiting to give its deadly embrace (Rev 14:9). Church of God of Abrahamic Faith has gone through this very process. Their initial difference with the Christadelphians was immortal emmergence. But eventually, for unrelated reasons, a larger contingent in that community denied "sin in the flesh" which has lead to that larger group's recent acceptance of the apostate teaching regarding the devil.
        
        
      • You can see how the two lines of thought run in this PDF chart. It will take a few minutes to download over a dialup connection.
   6. Where did this problem begin?
      
      • It is instructive to go back to the beginning, to the time when this error began its most public promulgation in Christadelphia and to look at the issues as they originally appeared. If the modern day errorists teach the same thing Edward Turney taught, then despite their attempts to distance themselves from him, they are in fact in the same proverbial boat. Now, here is Edward Turney writing before he was disfellowshipped. This is the paragraph Edward Turney wrote that he later "renounced" giving name to his group, "the renuciationists". What he wrote, what he later renounced, is exactly what modern day errorists have problems with:

   
   

   What Edward Turney Wrote That He Later Renounced
   Edward Turney, Diabolism, page 41	PhysicalPhysical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Moral

It is worthy of note that the book Diabolism was endorsed by brother Roberts in The Christadelphian, vol 9 page 599. Brother Roberts served as one of two primary book agents in distributing the book. What Edward Turney teaches in this pre-renunciationist excerpt isoriginal Christadelphian doctrine. That to be "made sin" is to be made "identical with human nature"... "flesh and blood" or "sin's flesh". At first, Turney rightly interpreted the Scriptural language. Only a short time later he would renounce this paragraph and begin teaching the revised claims that "Jesus died for OUR SINS"  -- a theme that is right in its place but when elevated above the doctrine of God being shown to be just (Rom 3:26) and God manifestation (1Ti 3:16, 1Pe 1:16), it becomes the mere refrain of humanistic Orthodox Christianity. Deny "sin in the flesh" and you are forced to adopt the teachings of the apostasy. But some latter-day "Christadelphians" would

"rather take the apostacy than Paul for our guide in the matter"

3. Sadly, most in the Christadelphian community neither care nor take the time to read and understand Christadelphian history. There is "nothing new under the sun" and certainly the errors that are being promoted today are old heresies (1Jo 4:3). It is sad that brethren have to repeat the errors of history (Jud 4:1) when we have the "history books" of the past generations showing what was rightly taught, what errorists taught, and how the original Christadelphian community handled errorists. Brethren are too beholden by the love of men (Phi 2:21), rather than the love of God. The price is greater than many are willing to pay (Joh 6:66). They have too much to lose (Mat 19:29) and therefore, in some cases refuse to look at the evidence (Isa 30:10). Some are too taken by union (2Ch 18:3; Jer 6:14) rather than Scriptural doctrinal unity (Rom 15:6). Too busy witnessing against the apostasy or debating with the apostasy (1Co 9:27) instead of teaching themselves basic Christadelphian doctrine first (Heb 5:12). Others are too busy with movies, football games and other gentile pleasures (1Pe 5:8). "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him" (Titus 1:16). "and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Yes, these are hard-sayings but have you never read, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts"?

4. Sadly, some brethren who ought to know better (and who in fact seem to be straight themselves on the atonement) are unable to see the elastic words employed by the errorists -- though their elasticity has been documented. They therefore give aid and support to the errorists they are friends with, while the errors eat out the heart of the Christadelphian community, removing original Biblical Christadelphian teachings and substituting in their place the teachings they have acquired from, or never left with, orthodox Christianity.

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8).
For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed (Isaiah 9:16).
Type. Antitype? Selah.

---

Footnotes:

¹ "Bro. [Richard] Stone had taken the day off in order to have a chat. He tackled me upon the sacrifice of Christ. He takes the stand adopted by the late Bro. [Harry] Fry that Christ died only for himself in the sense that the sins of his fellows were imputed to him. I told him, as is a fact, that his teaching would be looked upon as clean-flesh in Australia. He was shocked at this. I assured him that it was so, and then proceeded to question him as to why the altar had to be cleansed by blood before it could be used, why the tabernacle, and holy vessels, had so to be cleansed" (H.P. Mansfield, Logos, June 2001, p. 352).

² The duplicity of the NASU movement was demonstrated in the private mailing sent only to the Unamended community assuring Unamended brethren that the status quo of their Andrewistic beliefs were covered by the NASU statement where the two statements of faith are placed on equal footing. One answer in the mailing suggests that baptism is the basis of resurrectional responsibility -- which is exactly what Andrewism teaches. Of course the statement is carefully worded to apply to "the saints" leaving the NASU committee a very poor but convenient escape if pressed on the issue. But last I checked the Bible, the basis of resurrectional responsibility was exactly the same for the baptised and the unbaptised.

³The case is similar to that of an individual who stayed in the Unamended community (partly due to location) for many years, though the individual's beliefs were Central beliefs. The individual was given grief, accused of Clean-Flesh, by particular brethren in the Unamended meeting because the person would not accept JJ Andrew's ideas. The individual was a reader of John Thomas and Robert Roberts, not JJ Andrew. Years later the individual switched to a Central meeting and it would have seemed that the persecution was at an end. But some time later, some of the individual's accusers also joined Central, having been converted to Harry Fry's doctrine. The particular individual never changed their doctrine but was now accused of Andrewism -- by those "neither understanding what they say, nor whereof they affirm." Ignorance of doctrine or of history will be no excuse at the judgment-seat particularly when that ignorance is self-imposed.